Thursday, February 23, 2012

Poll: Government does not have the right to legalise gay marriage

In an article for the Daily Mail, Lord Carey claimed the proposal to change the status of marriage ''constitutes one of the greatest political power grabs in history''.
In September, it was announced that the coalition Government would legislate for same-sex marriages by 2015.
A public consultation on how to make civil marriage available to same-sex couples is to be launched next month.Poll here

13 comments:

It seems that the Government has forgotten what people do on their wedding day.

If two people irrevocably give to and receive from each other the right to engage, with one another to the exclusion of all others, in acts of a kind which could cause the conception of a child, then they marry. If not, then they do something other than marry.

This is why marriage cannot come into being between persons of the same sex.

So, if the Government wants to legalise same-sex marriege, it has to change the subject matter of the marital right.

So the civil law will be that, if two people irrevocably give to and receive from each other the right to engage, with one another to the exclusion of all others, in sexual acts of any description, then they marry. If not, then they do something other than marry, and a civil court can declare the marriage to be void for defect of consent.

It means that, if Catholics (and anyone else) want to marry and to have civil recognition of the validity of their marriage, the bride and the groom must sacriligeously intend on their wedding day to confer on each other the right to the body for sexual acts closed to the gift of life as well as for those which are not.

What you have are Frankfurt School and Frankfurt School-lite. Both disgusting options. What next? Father and daughter being allowed to get married? Who'd have thought even in 1970 that we'd be where we are today with constant perversions being pushed, and not only pushed but hailed as normative. How about Adam, Steve, their bisexual dog Max, and lesbian Chimpanzee Minnie? Are there not enough decent conservative party members to throw Cameron out? Who died and anointed him princess Leia?

The queen needs to step up to the plate and put a stop to this madness. Otherwise, what is the point of her being there? Isn't she supposed to be the last resort as a protection of her people? If she's the so-called 'Defender of Faith' it's about time she start earning her keep in that department! This is obviously the first step into forcing churches to marry these people (and chimps and whatever.) There are already civil partnerships on the books -- so why go this route unless it's for an entirely sinister motive? Wouldn't trust Cameron and his minions as far as you can throw them. [And Labour are just as hideous, so don't go there with me.]

In general day to day things I understand that she is to advise and warn -- but if you're going to have a state religion with the queen as 'defender of the faith' this is surely an issue she should break silence on -- or give up pretense to the title. The proposed law is so noxious, it should be stopped in its tracks.

A nice wallop to the side of Cameron's head with her handbag in her next private meeting with him wouldn't be a bad thing either. Preferably said handbag, in addition to the usual lipstick, compact and hankie should ideally contain a brick. Or better yet have the corgis trained to act on an innocuous 'kill phrase' like 'good evening, Mr. Cameron.'

What's the point of having a monarch if they can't occasionally go all medieval on an unsuspecting chump? He'd never see it coming.

I am sure that we have now all been shown the letter from + Vincent Nichols and + Peter Smith, about the proposed changes in the legal definition of marriage. We need to read it out to our Flock next weekend at all the Sunday Masses.

I certainly will do so and I will add a few comments of my own also.

I want to hear a clear statement from Westminster telling the whole world that gay relationships that are sexually active are wrong.

I don't want words of implication or weak words.

I want (and many other priests also) to hear or read, a statement with clear good all fashioned plain English language.

I would like to see a strong and transparent Catholic Leadership in England and Wales. A leadership that follows Rome and the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI.

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna

My Parish's Website

Comments

Comments may or may not be published. The choice is made on the spur of the moment and is purely arbitary. I do not necessarily agree with all comments published but they are published in the interest of debate. If you object go here.